EV Digest 2488
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Update on Tilley's Delorian
by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: ceramic heater thoughts...
by Sharkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Load-Sensing Transfer Switch for 2 Chargers
by "Joe Smalley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: ceramic heater thoughts...
by Otmar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: OT - Re: hydrogen economy
by "Vince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Fw: evaa2002 text report
by "Mark Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: OT - Re: hydrogen economy
by Peter A VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Update on Tilley's Delorian
by "Mark Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
At 04:08 AM 12/17/02, you wrote:
I recently got an email from Bruce Meland about his visit
to Tilley's, checking his website I found this writeup with lots
of pictures that you might enjoy:
http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/delorean_ev2.html
Rumor has it that the figure the foreign company is
paying for the technology is high 10 figures.
"Disgruntled former investor" Hmm, this is interesting.
First:
"A large foreign corporation approached the Tilley Foundation
recently about doing extensive tests to verify the unusual claims of
unusual distances achieved by the Electric DeLorean as well as the self
generating device that powers their shop. "
Then (in the same article):
"The foreign corporation asked Carl Tilley and the Tilley
Foundation that no further demonstrations be made."
Do they want it tested, or not?
If you were investing in such a device, wouldn't you want lots of
folks to know that it works so you can make lots of money selling them? A
device that is demonstrated to work is worth a lot more than an unproven
device.
I guess an EV is to an over-unity scam what a folded newspaper is
to a three-card Monty scam.
_ /| Bill "Wisenheimer" Dube'
\'o.O' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=(___)=
U
Check out the bike -> http://www.KillaCycle.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>So, do folks think?
I think you answered the question yourself. Ceramic cores are
self-limiting, they only get so hot, then the resistance goes up and the
current stabilizes. Since you haven't managed to burn one up, two in
parallel should be just as safe.
If you want hi/lo consider using a parallel/series switch. Of course,
you'll have to experiment a little, because two in series might not be much
under the self-limiting voltage, and they may stay almost as hot as in
parallel. Seems like I remember the insides of my (still AC powered)
ceramic heater had the core split up into individual sections, each wired
separately. This might help you devise a switching regime. Four resistance
units (in two cores) in series might throttle back the heat more.
I'm still pretty happy with my LPG furnace on the EV, but ceramic cores in
the heater would be a blast.
-S
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Idea 1:
Is it possible to turn down the current on the chargers so that they will be
under the 60 amps limit.
Idea 2:
Can you use a 240 to 120 step down transformer to convert the 120 volt 30
amp load into a 240 volt 15 amp load to the breaker. That way the 15 plus 40
amp loads are under the 60 amp breaker limit.
Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Fiesta 48 volts
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marvin Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 7:50 AM
Subject: Load-Sensing Transfer Switch for 2 Chargers
> Well, we finally got everything squared away with Edison regarding our TOU
> meter, with one little hitch:
>
> Since the TOU meter's "sidesaddle" mounting ring (which is attached under
> our existing meter) is only rated for 60 amps we can't charge two cars
> simultaneously.
>
> In order to get everything up and running we now have a manual transfer
> switch, but since we can only charge between 9pm and noon, to get both
cars
> charged overnight will involve "someone" getting up at 3 or 4am and
hitting
> the switch.
>
> I would use a timer and separate circuit but we only have one circuit for
> the TOU meter with two chargers using it.
>
> Someone mentioned to me a mechanical load-sensing switch that, after first
> charge tapers off, would then switch over to second charger automatically.
>
> What would be the simplest means by which to achieve this end?
>
> J. Marvin Campbell
> Culver City, CA
> 1992 Soleq EVcort
> 2003 RAV4 EV
>
> (Hollywood Toyota called and told me they were out of 2002 RAV4s. As I
began
> to keel over, they hurriedly added that that meant we would be getting a
> 2003 instead and was that OK with me? Incentive deadline has also been
moved
> back from 12/31/02 to sometime in 3/03)
>
> Just because the oil company owns our government doesn't mean we have to
buy
> their product.
> -Mo'Nilla
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 12:13 AM -0500 12/18/02, Jeremy Green wrote:
....
What's our thought on putting too much voltage through these? I had
always thought that it would just make them run a little hotter but
that they are pretty self limiting so it wouldn't be a problem.
They never drew that much current from the pack I think I probably
got a maximum of about a 5 amp draw once it is heated up (from one
core).
So, do folks think?
-Jeremy
Hello Jeremy,
The concern I have is this: what happens if the air flow is too small
and they get too hot?
One of the primary reasons for using these in EVs is that they are
self limiting and therefore provide some inherent safety in case the
blower fan should fail.
I've been studying ceramic PTC thermistors (not the heaters, just the
discs) lately since I use them in the Zilla precharger. I believe the
materials used are essentially the same though the values and
thresholds are sure to be different.
When a PTC thermistor gets hot, its resistance rises rapidly, but
only to a point. As it gets hotter still the resistance drops
severely. The units are designed never to reach this temperature when
used with rated voltage. If the applied voltage is too high and the
cooling (airflow) is not sufficient the unit may continue to heat
beyond the point at which the resistance starts to drop again and go
into a runaway mode. This can cause the unit to get hot enough to
melt steel. In my tests the discs would flame up briefly before
melting themselves away from the rest of the test fixture.
The discs I have are rated for 3 minutes at 50% overvoltage. I tried
to run them at 75% overvoltage with catastrophic failure. Other parts
which are UL listed are rated for 100% overvoltage and some others
from Europe actually are built for 300% overvoltage. I have no idea
if the heaters are required to meet the same standards. The voltage
ratings are AC RMS and so should be compared to the peak voltages you
expect to see on your system in DC.
If you want to test how safe it is, you could try running the unit at
max voltage with no airflow and see if it burns up. This may be
unpleasant.
Another option would be to contact the manufacturer and find out what
they can take.
As for wiring two modules in series, that is unlikely to help your
fault voltage issue (I tried it). One gets very hot while the other
stays cool, the hot one goes into runaway too quickly for the other
to save it.
It may be possible to series the multiple elements in each heater
itself for higher voltage ratings. The effectiveness of this depends
on the thermal connection between neighboring elements. Here is a
simple way to test if elements in series share voltage in a fault
condition: Wire them in series (such as by skipping every other
connection on the element) and then with no airflow and a safe
voltage on them (like 120V) check the voltage of the center terminal
when it is hot. If it is anywhere close to 1/2 the applied voltage
then they are sharing the voltage well.
The simpler way may be to inquire of the manufacturer as to the safe
voltage limits of the units.
I myself have some very nice units from
http://www.canev.com/KitsComp/Components/Heater.html which I am
planning to put in my high voltage 914. Unfortunately I bought them a
long time ago and so they are rated for 144V. I'll have to see if
they hold 288V when the elements are in series.
-Otmar-
http://www.CafeElectric.com/ Home of the Zilla.
http://www.evcl.com/914 My electric 914
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Peter wrote:
> You switched it not me.
[SNIP]
Your arguing over who said what was getting silly.
> Currently Sodium Borohydride is rather expensive
> to make and costs about $50 to $100 per kg. It is
> possible to reverse the"Millennium Cell" process
> however their patented recycling method has be
> PROVEN to be unworkable.
Unworkable ? That would be news to DaimlerChrysler. As of nine days ago, they have
announced:
"Last year, DaimlerChrysler became the first automaker to produce a vehicle using
Millennium Cell's sodium borohydride-based
Hydrogen on Demand(TM) fuel system.
"The success of the Natrium(TM) Town & Country minivan HAS EXCEEDED OUR EXPECTATIONS
and we are now focusing on further
optimizing the fuel system in the areas of heat and water management," said Thomas
Moore, Vice President, DaimlerChrysler's Liberty &
Technical Affairs research and development group. Millennium Cell and DaimlerChrysler
were recognized by Popular Science with a 2002
Best of What's New Award for the successful solution of hydrogen fuel delivery used in
the Natrium."
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/021209/92223_1.html
(emphasis mine)
> The only workable methods require huge amounts
> of energy, temperatures above 200 degrees, that
> sort of thing.
Except the company states that it DOESN'T require high temperatures, and is a "low
cost" and "simple" hydrogen storage system.
In regards to the recycling, they state:
"the borohydride fuel is converted to a borate solution, which is collected in a waste
tank. This borate solution is recyclable into new
borohydride fuel. Borohydride can be re-used indefinitely in this cycle."
Are you contending that those are all misrepresentations ? If so, that would be a
major violation of securities laws and would leave them
wide open for prosecution (well, perhaps not under this administration), as well as
massive investor lawsuits.
> For the moment ignore the costs of the solar cells,
> assume you can get them for free. Stuartenergy is
> quite possibly the leader in hydrogen electrolysis
> systems 9convert water into hydrogen). They claim
> a system efficiency of about 80%... you are already
> behind pumped hydro storage.
BZZZZT.
You're confused. The system doesn't make hydrogen. It merely stores hydrogen.
> Hydrogen Oxygen Fuel Cells have a maximum
> theoretical efficiency of 83%, real fuel cells
> are around 50%.
Again, you're confused. It's not a fuel cell. It can potentially be mated to a fuel
cell, but that's a separate discussion.
> Of course once you come back to the real world
> and use actual fuel cells (50%)
Again, it's not a fuel cell.
> and account for storage losses (compression
> 94%, pressurized storage
The system involves neither compression or pressurization, so it doesn't suffer any of
those losses. I already posted that earlier.
Peter, you're having some sort of argument, but it seems to be with someone else,
about something else.
Vince
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
* LP8.2: HTML/Attachments detected, removed from message *
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It has become clear to me that you are not even bothering to read all of
my posts and are misinterpreting the parts you do read.
I'm sure the list will be happy to know that I won't bother trying to
correct you anymore.
You're right, I'm wrong, have a nice day.
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 04:37, Vince wrote:
>
> Peter wrote:
>
>
> > You switched it not me.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> Your arguing over who said what was getting silly.
>
>
> > Currently Sodium Borohydride is rather expensive
> > to make and costs about $50 to $100 per kg. It is
> > possible to reverse the"Millennium Cell" process
> > however their patented recycling method has be
> > PROVEN to be unworkable.
>
> Unworkable ? That would be news to DaimlerChrysler. As of nine days ago, they have
>announced:
>
> "Last year, DaimlerChrysler became the first automaker to produce a vehicle using
>Millennium Cell's sodium borohydride-based
> Hydrogen on Demand(TM) fuel system.
>
> "The success of the Natrium(TM) Town & Country minivan HAS EXCEEDED OUR EXPECTATIONS
>and we are now focusing on further
> optimizing the fuel system in the areas of heat and water management," said Thomas
>Moore, Vice President, DaimlerChrysler's Liberty &
> Technical Affairs research and development group. Millennium Cell and
>DaimlerChrysler were recognized by Popular Science with a 2002
> Best of What's New Award for the successful solution of hydrogen fuel delivery used
>in the Natrium."
>
> http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/021209/92223_1.html
>
> (emphasis mine)
>
>
> > The only workable methods require huge amounts
> > of energy, temperatures above 200 degrees, that
> > sort of thing.
>
> Except the company states that it DOESN'T require high temperatures, and is a "low
>cost" and "simple" hydrogen storage system.
>
> In regards to the recycling, they state:
>
> "the borohydride fuel is converted to a borate solution, which is collected in a
>waste tank. This borate solution is recyclable into new
> borohydride fuel. Borohydride can be re-used indefinitely in this cycle."
>
> Are you contending that those are all misrepresentations ? If so, that would be a
>major violation of securities laws and would leave them
> wide open for prosecution (well, perhaps not under this administration), as well as
>massive investor lawsuits.
>
>
> > For the moment ignore the costs of the solar cells,
> > assume you can get them for free. Stuartenergy is
> > quite possibly the leader in hydrogen electrolysis
> > systems 9convert water into hydrogen). They claim
> > a system efficiency of about 80%... you are already
> > behind pumped hydro storage.
>
> BZZZZT.
>
> You're confused. The system doesn't make hydrogen. It merely stores hydrogen.
>
>
> > Hydrogen Oxygen Fuel Cells have a maximum
> > theoretical efficiency of 83%, real fuel cells
> > are around 50%.
>
> Again, you're confused. It's not a fuel cell. It can potentially be mated to a fuel
>cell, but that's a separate discussion.
>
>
> > Of course once you come back to the real world
> > and use actual fuel cells (50%)
>
> Again, it's not a fuel cell.
>
>
> > and account for storage losses (compression
> > 94%, pressurized storage
>
> The system involves neither compression or pressurization, so it doesn't suffer any
>of those losses. I already posted that earlier.
>
>
> Peter, you're having some sort of argument, but it seems to be with someone else,
>about something else.
>
>
> Vince
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It does kind of make it into a National Inquire science fiction mag by
putting in these types of articles.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Victor Tikhonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: Update on Tilley's Delorian
> "VanDerWal, Peter MSgt" wrote:
> >
> > Bruce knows this, he drives an EV after all. This kind of fallacious
> > reporting is inexcusable.
> >
> I agree. What do you think can make Bruce to publish this?
>
> The more I read about this stuff, the more I suspect that
> Tilley survival as long as possible and ET coverage are set up
> to be mutually beneficial. Hope this is not true, I want to be
> wrong here, but I can't imagine why otherwise Bruce does it -
> it is seem to be a dis-service to the readers. Just like those
> UFO publications.
>
> With all respect, this is wrong way to attract subscribers Bruce.
> (final point of the piece was urging to subscribe to find out more).
>
> I know Bruce personally, he's fine man. I really wish I'd be
> wrong on my judgment here...
>
> Victor
>
--- End Message ---
